Hi.Dalai lama said that to his own way it isnt perfect enlightenment to not be altruistic. Isnt Theravadabuddhists getting real enligthenment?Where does mahayanaway come from? From what sort of practice? How do they practice? Theravadabuddhist reach enlightenment on eventually 3 ways, keeping up practice, working as a arrow, the 3 icant remember. there is different buddhahoods too..)

I could be wrong, but your post seems to imply that Theravadins are not altruistic? Theravada Buddhists (good ones anyway) are altruistic. They don't take the Bodhisattva vow of returning to samsara, but the 10 Paramitas do include dana (generosity) and metta (loving-kindness) and the best practice is considered one that benefits yourself and others (from the Suttas).

"Monks, these four types of individuals are to be found existing in the world. Which four? Theone who practices neither for his/her own benefit nor for that of others. The one who practicesfor the benefit of others but not for his/her own. The one who practices for his/her own benefitbut not for that of others. The one who practices for his/her own benefit and for that of others.Just as from a cow comes milk; from milk, curds; from curds, butter; from butter, ghee; fromghee, the skimmings of ghee; and of these, the skimmings of ghee are reckoned the foremost — inthe same way, of these four, the individual who practices for his/her own benefit and for thatof others is the foremost, the chief, the most outstanding, the highest, and supreme."Anguttara Nikaya 4.95

Altruistic or not, what is the difference? What is this wanting to be altruistic? Altruistic is just an idea - what wants to be that idea? Not altruistic is just an idea too. What wants to be different from that idea? What feels like "I am Mahayana" or "I am Theravada" and thinks "Mahayana is this or that" or "Theravada is that or this". What's the purpose of ideas chasing after ideas? Just consciousnesses grasping and affirming themselves, affirmation of self

The teachings of the Mahayana have long asserted that the primary aim of the Southern School was Arhantship - personal liberation. The best candidate for Arhantship would take a scant seven lifetimes before reaching their goal. The Mahayana also asserted that the highest goal of the Mahayana was the Bodhisattva ideal as exemplified by Shakyamuni Buddha. The problem with this is that the best candidate for Buddhahood would them take 3 Uncountable Eons to accumulate merit and wisdom to attain Buddhahood. The scope of the Mahayana was to include all beings and thus encouraged the view that the Mahayana teachings were altruistic and universal in the sense of encompassing all beings while the Southern School's scope was limited to the personal liberation of the individual.

Both the Mahayana (the Northern School) and the Theravada (the Southern School) have Bodhisattva teaching and both agree that it takes at least 3 Uncountable Eons to attain Buddhahood in the best of cases (and it even takes a full Uncountable Eon to attain the 1st Bodhisattva Bhumi). Thus the stage was set for a faster way to attain Buddhahood or higher Bodhisattvahood in the Northern School.

The terms altruistic, not-altruistic, working for the benefit of all beings, working for the limited scope of one's personal liberation - these are all motivations found in the minds of practitioners from either school and some Mahayana teachers acknowledge this (i.e. people striving for Arhantship can be working for the benefit of all beings, etc.).

Buddhism can have it's own polemics. Arhats are great. But the Mahayana schools do assert that the enlightenment of Arhats is less than than of Buddhas and less than that of PraetyekaBuddhas as well (Arhat < Prateyakabuddha < Buddha). I'm not sure that the Southern School makes this distinction.

villkorkarma wrote:Hi.Dalai lama said that to his own way it isnt perfect enlightenment to not be altruistic. Isnt Theravadabuddhists getting real enligthenment?Where does mahayanaway come from? From what sort of practice? How do they practice? Theravadabuddhist reach enlightenment on eventually 3 ways, keeping up practice, working as a arrow, the 3 icant remember. there is different buddhahoods too..)

Others' cannot be excluded.

No way to divide like we are used to do by samsaric habits like comparing own being with others.

'Others' are the needful means for 'realization'.

Bodhichitta (emptiness-compassion) is called the altruistic Mind of enlightenment.

According to the Diamond Sutra no being has actually been led to nirvana (i.e., saved).

The Lord said: Here, Subhuti, someone who has set out in the vehicle of a Bodhisattva should produce a thought in this manner: 'As many beings as there are in the universe of beings, comprehended under the term "beings" egg-born, born from a womb, moisture-born, or miraculously born; with or without form; with perception, without perception, and with neither perception nor non-perception, as far as any conceivable form of beings is conceived: all these I must lead to Nirvana, into that Realm of Nirvana which leaves nothing behind. And yet, although innumerable beings have thus been led to Nirvana, no being at all has been led to Nirvana.' And why? If in a Bodhisattva the notion of a 'being' should take place, he could not be called a 'Bodhi-being'. 'And why? He is not to be called a Bodhi-being, in whom the notion of a self or of a being should take place, or the notion of a living soul or of a person.'

songhill wrote:According to the Diamond Sutra no being has actually been led to nirvana (i.e., saved).

The Lord said: Here, Subhuti, someone who has set out in the vehicle of a Bodhisattva should produce a thought in this manner: 'As many beings as there are in the universe of beings, comprehended under the term "beings" egg-born, born from a womb, moisture-born, or miraculously born; with or without form; with perception, without perception, and with neither perception nor non-perception, as far as any conceivable form of beings is conceived: all these I must lead to Nirvana, into that Realm of Nirvana which leaves nothing behind. And yet, although innumerable beings have thus been led to Nirvana, no being at all has been led to Nirvana.' And why? If in a Bodhisattva the notion of a 'being' should take place, he could not be called a 'Bodhi-being'. 'And why? He is not to be called a Bodhi-being, in whom the notion of a self or of a being should take place, or the notion of a living soul or of a person.'

And while the Diamond Sutra pulls the rug out from under "beings," the Lotus Sutra does the same for "nirvana," which is said to be analogous to a conjured city, a waystation created temporarily to encourage and refresh those on the path to Buddhahood.

Need help getting on retreat? Want to support others in practice? Pay the Dana for Dharma forum a visit...